OCR ↗︎
Christianity ↗︎
Question preparation ↓

AO1: Secularism & Humanism

Secularisation is the sociological process by which religion’s influence within society changes, such as through decline or movement into private life.
Secularism is instead a political principle about the proper place of religion in public life and the state.
Procedural / open secularism allows religious and secular worldviews to participate publicly, aiming at pluralistic coexistence.
Programmatic / closed secularism seeks to restrict religion within public institutions and confine it more strongly to private life.
The Enlightenment weakened religion’s position as the main source of truth and morality.
Galileo helped establish the authority of empirical science over religious doctrine.
Locke defended freedom of belief, while Kant sought to bring religion “within the limits of reason,” partly in response to religious conflict.
Secular humanism develops these ideas into a positive worldview rather than merely criticising religion.
It argues that truth should be based on reason, evidence and scientific inquiry rather than revelation or religious authority.
Truth is therefore provisional and open to revision rather than fixed by sacred texts.
Its ethics are similarly grounded without God.
Morality is based on human wellbeing, autonomy and flourishing rather than divine command.
Humanists affirm the dignity of persons, drawing partly on Kant’s idea that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves.
This supports human rights while combining autonomy with concern for human flourishing.
Secular humanism can support different forms of secularism depending on which values are prioritised.
Emphasising autonomy and pluralism supports procedural secularism, where religion remains part of public debate.
Emphasising rationality and preventing harm can support programmatic secularism, where religion’s public role is more restricted.
Secular humanism therefore seeks to provide truth and values without religion while allowing disagreement about religion’s public role.

AO1: Freud

Freud challenged religious authority through psychology, explaining why so many people believe in God if God does not exist.
His answer was that religion functions as wish-fulfilment and social control.
Freud thought society depends on socialisation, through which each generation learns to repress its animalistic “asocial” instincts.
The superego develops from the internalised commands of childhood authority figures.
Religious upbringing intensifies this through divine commands, heaven, hell and an all-seeing father-like God who judges even private thoughts.
Religion also comforts people by projecting order, protection and purpose onto a chaotic world.
During childhood this security comes from the father; religion extends this infantile dependence into adulthood by projecting an eternal father onto reality.
Freud’s objection was therefore not simply that religion restrains instincts, since every society requires restraint.
The problem is that religion achieves this through illusion, guilt and submission to authority.
A healthier secular society would teach people to regulate themselves through rational understanding of why social rules are necessary.
This would be more truthful because it abandons comforting illusions, and more autonomous because morality follows adult understanding rather than fear.
It would also be more adaptable, since rational rules can be revised while supposed divine commands tend towards rigidity.
Freud therefore thought religion belonged to the “ignorant childhood days of the human race” and should eventually be replaced by science.
This fits liberalism because free societies require rational self-regulation and tolerance of uncertainty rather than dependence on divine authority.

AO2: Freud’s views on Christian ethics as infantile

Freud argues religious ethics extends infantile moral socialisation into adulthood.
Children learn obedience through fear of the father, and religion projects this authority onto God.
Adults may therefore remain motivated by fear, reward and appeasement rather than genuine virtue.
As Aristotle argued, virtue should be rational and valued intrinsically.
Freud thinks mature morality instead recognises rationally why social rules are good, producing greater autonomy and self-control.

Counter

However, Aquinas’ natural law ethics is more sophisticated than this.
Humans use reason to apprehend moral principles and develop virtues that fulfil their natural telos.
Jung similarly argues religion can aid psychological development rather than merely impose rules.
Biblical stories such as Cain and Abel may help people recognise destructive emotions like envy.

Evaluation

Nonetheless, Freud’s objection remains powerful when combined with Mill’s criticism of religious reward and punishment.
If someone is virtuous in order to reach heaven, virtue has become instrumental.
Christianity contains the greatest possible carrot and stick: infinite heaven and hell.
These are so powerful that even sincere Christians may struggle to know whether their virtue is genuinely disinterested.
Christian ethics therefore risks retaining the child-like psychology Freud criticised; obedience motivated by reward and punishment.

AO1: Dawkins: Militant atheism / anti-theism & the rise of New atheism

New Atheism became culturally prominent in the 21st century.
New Atheists accept religious freedom but want believers to abandon religion through persuasion in the “marketplace of ideas.”
Their method therefore fits open secularism: cultural argument rather than state suppression.
Their goal is more radical, since they seek religion’s eventual disappearance rather than merely its removal from public institutions.
They argue religion remains harmful even in liberal forms and as a private belief.
Major figures include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
Religion as a virus
Dawkins coined ‘meme’ for ideas and practices transmitted culturally through imitation.
Religious memes can spread “epidemiologically”, especially from adults to children.
Because children naturally depend on adults, they may accept religious beliefs before their critical thinking develops.
Dawkins particularly condemns teaching hell, which children may experience as a real and terrifying threat.
He points to former believers requiring therapy for persistent fear of hell and argues psychological harm can be as serious as physical harm.
This supports his provocative description of some religious upbringing as ‘child abuse’.
New Atheists also follow Freud in explaining religion through psychological needs.
Fear of death and desires for meaning, authority and reunion with loved ones encourage comforting religious beliefs.
Dawkins compares theism to belief in Santa Claus and calls dependence upon religion for meaning ‘infantile’.
His “truly adult view” is that humans create meaning for themselves.
Dennett similarly suggests some people value religion mainly for its comfort and purpose, effectively “believing in belief in God”.
These criticisms connect New Atheism with secular humanism.
Its emphasis on evidence and reason encourages distrust of unquestionable authority and confidence in individual judgement.
This supports liberal values such as autonomy, human flourishing, rights and publicly justifiable laws.
New Atheists therefore argue that irrational ways of forming beliefs can produce irrational moral and political authority.
Hitchens attacks religion for idealising submission to divine authority, especially when believers use God’s commands to coerce others.
Harris argues that treating faith as a legitimate source of certainty can enable extremism, while moderate religion may protect faith from rational criticism.
The debate is therefore partly about what kinds of reasons are legitimate in modern society.
Science, autonomous ethics and liberal politics require claims to remain open to criticism and justification.
New Atheists oppose religion because faith can exempt beliefs from those demands.

AO1: The value of Faith schools

Faith schools reflect the wider debate over Christianity’s place in modern Britain.
Many were originally founded by the Church of England or Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century before entering the state system.
The 1944 Education Act formalised this arrangement, allowing state funding provided schools met national educational standards.
Today, over a third of primary schools and just under a fifth of secondary schools retain Christian affiliation, showing religion remains institutionally important.
Supporters argue faith schools provide strong academic standards, moral formation and a sense of community.
They also respect parents who want their children educated within a particular religious worldview.
Many remain popular and oversubscribed, with some non-religious parents attracted by their reputation for discipline and ethos.
Defenders also argue they contribute to multicultural diversity because the UK includes Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faith schools.
Critics argue faith schools can instead encourage segregation and indoctrination.
Religious conscience may also conflict with expectations around issues such as LGBT+ inclusion and equality.
Christian admissions policies have been criticised for favouring middle-class families prepared to attend church in order to gain a place.

AO2: Faith schools & science

Dawkins argues faith schools exploit children’s dependence on adults before critical thinking develops.
He particularly condemns threats of hell, which may encourage an unscientific mindset in which important claims are accepted through faith and authority rather than evidence.
Dawkins visited a faith school where he was told all pupils rejected evolution, while the science teacher struggled to explain why the continued existence of monkeys does not conflict with human evolution.
This suggests religious schooling can obstruct scientific understanding and reasoning.

Counter

McGrath agrees that indoctrination is wrong and argues Christian beliefs should face evidence-based reasoning.
However, he thinks Dawkins’ reasonable criticism gets lost in the “noise of the hyped-up rhetoric”, particularly his description of religious upbringing as child abuse.
Faith schools could instead encourage pupils to examine inherited religious beliefs critically rather than simply accept them.

Evaluation

However, although Dawkins’ accusation of ‘child abuse’ is overgeneralised, it is not empty rhetoric, since some ex-Christians require therapy to overcome fears of hell.
More importantly, although McGrath is right that arguments for religion exist, few believers seem to acquire religion through independent reasoning.
Studies suggest around 80% of religious people share the religion of at least one parent, suggesting social transmission plays a major role.
Faith schools reinforce this by forming children within one religious framework before they can properly assess alternatives.
Dawkins is therefore right that faith schools involve at least a soft form of indoctrination and risk encouraging an unscientific mindset.
Parental religious influence should not therefore receive the additional institutional reinforcement of faith schools.

AO2: Faith schools & democracy

The faith-school debate concerns what education should achieve in a democracy.
Dewey described democracy as a “mode of associated living”, in which citizens communicate and cooperate across differences.
Schools should therefore develop the critical and social capacities needed for autonomous citizenship.
In a multi-faith society, pupils should critically engage with competing worldviews rather than simply inherit one.
Feinberg’s “right to an open future” similarly suggests parents should not prevent children eventually choosing their own beliefs.
Faith schools may therefore conflict with democratic education by privileging one worldview while children are still developing.

Counter

However, liberal democracy also protects religious freedom and pluralism.
Banning faith schools could imply that secular education is the only legitimate framework.
Faith schools may instead combine a religious ethos with legal requirements for critical thinking, democratic values and exposure to other religions.

Evaluation

However, religious freedom protects belief and worship; it does not necessarily create a right to faith schools.
Dawkins argues that calling someone a ‘Christian child’ is as inappropriate as calling them a ‘Conservative’ or ‘Communist child’.
We can apply Dawkins’ point to faith schools.
We would normally reject schools organised around forming children as conservatives or communists, so religion needs a principled reason for special treatment.
Historical familiarity does not provide one.
Schools should instead present religions critically as competing worldviews, while parents remain free to teach their religion outside school.
This better protects children’s autonomy and democratic citizenship.
Such education is not perfectly neutral, since liberalism itself values autonomy and critical inquiry.
But confessional schooling conflicts with precisely those values.

AO2: Science vs religion on Methodology

The scientific method aims to believe what current evidence gives us most reason to accept.
Dawkins argues faith instead gives people an excuse to believe what they want.
In doubting Thomas, Jesus appears to praise those who believe without seeing.
This can encourage an unscientific mindset in which authority is valued above critical investigation.
Such habits can harm society when religious beliefs override evidence in areas such as medicine.

Counter

However, McGrath argues this ignores natural theology.
Aquinas’ Five Ways use a posteriori reasoning from features of the world to argue for a higher power.
Religious belief can therefore be supported by evidence and reasoning rather than blind faith.
Even if these arguments fail, they show religion need not be simply irrational.

Evaluation

However, natural theology still does not justify specifically Christian belief.
The Five Ways may at most establish some higher power, so using them to support Christianity stretches the evidence beyond what it shows.
Natural theologians often admit that faith is required to make this further step.
But that concedes that belief goes beyond the evidence.
McGrath therefore confuses using reason with being fully rational.
Hume argues that the wise person proportions belief to the evidence.
Christianity may be consistent with evidence, but it is not proportioned to it.
Even sophisticated theology therefore still promotes an unscientific mindset.

AO2: The harmfulness of religion

Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as an “ethnic cleanser … misogynistic, homophobic, infanticidal, genocidal” and “the most unpleasant character in all fiction”.
His point is that worshipping such a God may reinforce violence and prejudice.
Humans already have an evolved tribal tendency to favour their own group and distrust outsiders.
Religion can intensify this by dividing humanity into believers and non-believers, as religious conflict illustrates.

Counter

McGrath argues Dawkins unfairly treats fundamentalism as representative of religion.
Extremists may distort Christianity to legitimise prejudices they already possess.
Christianity can also oppose tribalism, since Jesus models agape across social boundaries, as in the Good Samaritan.
It can therefore challenge rather than encourage dehumanisation.

Evaluation

However, McGrath risks a No True Scotsman fallacy by treating violent Christianity as merely a distortion.
Biblical passages concerning women, homosexuality and slavery can themselves support prejudice.
Extremists therefore do not simply misuse Christianity; aspects of Christianity can also attract and enable them.
Religion can be both a symptom and a cause of prejudice.
Liberal reinterpretation cannot fully remove the problem because fundamentalists can appeal to the prima facie meaning of scripture.
As Sam Harris argues, the problem with religious fundamentalism can therefore lie partly in religion’s fundamentals.
Religion remains burdened by texts Mill called “in many respects barbarous”.

AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism

Dostoyevsky warned that if there is no God, everything is permitted.
Ratzinger similarly argues secularism reduces morality to human opinion and relativism.
This can leave the state free to define morality, helping explain 20th-century totalitarianism.
His view assumes a “dependence” anthropology: morality needs a transcendent foundation.

Counter

Liberalism argues state power can instead be restrained by democracy, rights and constitutional limits.
Kant offers an ‘autonomy’ anthropology, where rational humans can recognise moral law for themselves.
However, secular democracies generally avoid totalitarianism more reliably than theocracies and often perform well on social measures.
As Sam Harris argues, secularists only need to show that secular societies can flourish.
That disproves the claim that secularism necessarily ends in nihilism.

Evaluation

Nietzsche gives a deeper reason to reject Ratzinger’s conclusion.
Even if the ‘death of God’ initially causes nihilism, this does not show transcendent morality is permanently necessary.
Christianity may itself have conditioned people to associate value with transcendence and distrust moral autonomy.
Losing religion could therefore create a temporary crisis because people have been taught that life without God is meaningless.
Ratzinger then mistakes this disorientation for proof that religion was necessary all along.
Nietzsche’s critique gives this argument the logic of an abusive relationship: religion cultivates dependence, then treats the difficulty of independence as evidence we cannot survive without it.
Ancient Greek and modern secular ethics show coherent this-worldly morality is possible.
This supports the liberal view that humans can stand on their own two feet morally.

Question preparation

Key paragraphs:

AO1: Secularism & secularisation: religion in today’s society
AO1: Replacing religion as the source of moral values: Secular humanism
AO1: Freud
AO1: Dawkins: Militant atheism / anti-theism & the rise of New atheism
AO2: Science vs religion on Methodology
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism
AO2: Freud’s views on Christian ethics as infantile
AO1: The value of Faith schools
AO2: Debating faith schools

Question types:

Scholar/ideology focused questions:

How convincing are Freud’s views on religion? [40]

AO1: Freud
AO2: Freud’s views on Christian ethics as infantile
AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism
- Critiques secularism and thus by extension the mode of society Freud was advocating.
AO2: Science vs religion on Methodology
- Debates whether religion really is as irrational and unscientific as Freud would say.

Critically assess secular humanism [40]

AO1: Replacing religion as the source of moral values: Secular humanism
AO2: Science vs religion on Methodology
- Debates whether secular humanism is right about epistemology: whether religion is really more irrational and unscientific.
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
- Debates whether religion failing to center ethics on humans does indeed make it ethically flawed as secular humanists like Dawkins claim.
AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism
- Debates the claim that a secular humanist society has its own, potentially worse, flaws.

Evaluation the views of Richard Dawkins on religion [40]

AO1: Dawkins: Militant atheism / anti-theism & the rise of New atheism
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism
AO2: Debating faith schools

Issue focused questions:

“Faith schools have a valid role in today’s society” – Discuss [40]

AO1: The value of Faith schools
AO2: Debating faith schools
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
- If religion is as bad on morality as Dawkins argues here, that undermines the legitimacy of faith schools
AO2: Science vs religion on Methodology
- If religion is as irrational and fostering of an unscientific mind as Dawkins argues here, that’s an argument that children have a right to an education free from religious influence.

Weirdly worded questions:

Are secularism and secularisation are opportunities for Christianity to develop new ways of thinking and acting? [40]

AO1: Dawkins: Militant atheism / anti-theism & the rise of New atheism
- Dawkins would say no. ‘Anti-theists’ think secularism should aim at destroying religion and totally removing it from society – not developing it. They argue this because of:
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
- Debates whether anti-theists are right that religion is too harmful to have a place in society.
- McGrath counters – this critique only applies to religious extremists.
- So Dawkins may just be helping religion develop by identifying and rooting out its extremists.
- But in the end arguably the problem of religious extremism cannot be solved except by abandoning religion.
AO2: Science vs religion on Methodology
- Dawkins thinks religion is too irrational to develop.
- But this has led to a development in Christian apologetics, finding the rational grounding for faith – which McGrath defends.
AO2: Freud’s views on Christian ethics as infantile
- Freud thinks Christianity is just something to be grown out of, not developed.
- We can defend religion: Aquinas’ incorporation of virtue shows development in Christian ethics which supersedes Freud’s concerns
- But Mill thinks this fails and that no afterlife-theology can be ethically advanced because it makes people selfishly seek heaven rather than become virtuous.

Are spiritual values just human values? [40]

Spiritual values are those obtained through religious means, such as revelation.

Human values are those obtained through human means, such as by reason and empiricism, e.g., in secular humanism.

The debate is whether there’s any distinction between spiritual and human values. Religion is premised on the idea that spiritual values are higher/better than mere human values – because they genuinely come from a God and are thus ethically superior; create better societies, better enable flourishing, etc.

Whereas anti-theists will argue spiritual values don’t come from a God, but stone-age primitive social conditions – and that their effect on society betrays this lowly origin.

AO1: Replacing religion as the source of moral values: Secular humanism
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
- Dawkins: human values are better than spiritual values.
AO2: Freud’s views on Christian ethics as infantile
- Freud: human values are better than spiritual values.
AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism
- Ratzinger: spiritual values are greater and better than human values.

‘Christianity significantly defines today’s culture and values’ – Discuss [40]

AO1: Secularism & secularisation: religion in today’s society
AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism
- Ratzinger: today’s culture still needs religion as an anchor for objective values – look what happens when you get rid of it – Nazism, communism, etc.
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
- Dawkins: christian morality is outdated and barbaric, we don’t need it anymore – mainstream culture has moved on, and in a much more ethical direction.
AO2: Freud’s views on Christian ethics as infantile
- Freud argues religion is childish, belongs to the childish phase of the human race, is outgrown by modernity’s focus on rational autonomy – and that there’s no hope for Christianity ever properly

Could Christianity realistically be confined to private life? [40]

Procedural secularism: allows religion into the public sphere, just not direct state power.
Programmatic secularism: confines religion to private life
Anti-theism: allows religion into the public sphere – but challenges it in the public sphere, aiming to persuade it out of existence.

AO1: Secularism & secularisation: religion in today’s society
AO2: The harmfulness of religion
- Dawkins: religion is a relic of ancient barbaric ethics and needs to be outgrown, even in private life, for the good of society.
AO2: Whether secularism tends towards nihilism
- Ratzinger: look what happens when religion is marginalised – society is worse.
AO2: Debating faith schools
- Banning faith schools is part of the argument for relegating religion to private life, or eliminating it altogether.